Habitat for Humanity expects Katrina work.

[skids]

"Habitat for Humanity leaders say they plan to build thousands of homes along the Gulf Coast in what could be the Georgia-based organization's largest construction project ever."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/12567708.htm

Two things about this -- hopefully they will also build houses for those who have the sense NOT to move back to the Gulf Coast.

Secondly, it might not be a bad thing to ensure that these homes are built to the same energy-efficient standards that many HFH chapters are employing. Perhaps they already plan to do so, but they should make a statement that they aren't going to cheap out and produce a bunch of homes with high heating/AC bills.

http://www.habitatmetrodenver.org/aboutus/abouthms.htm

[whistle]

1. Are they a subsidiary of Halliburton Corp, if not they are SOL!

[longship]

2. I didn't know they did high rises and gated mansions.

n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

4. They don't. nt

[DemBones DemBones]

3. I can't imagine that Habitat for Humanity would do

otherwise. They're a very good group.

By the way, wanting to live on the Gulf Coast doesn't mean that you have no sense.
If your house is properly built, not directly on the beach, and you pay attention to hurricane warnings, you shouldn't have any problems. UNLESS you're poor, elderly, or disabled, in which case the government needs to help you leave in case of mandatory evacuation. Our government is supposed to look out for us, to keep us safe.

There aren't many places in the country that don't get hurricanes or tornadoes or earthquakes or blizzards or icestorms. In north Georgia, we've been through all five of those, although the quake was a small one. The other four types of "weather events" we've had here have caused lots of destruction and some loss of life -- and note that hurricanes have affected us though we're several hundred miles from the coast!

Edit: I forgot floods -- and we've had those in north Georgia, too. You'd be hardpressed to find a place to live where there was never any dangerous weather.

[dcfirefighter]

5. Our government is supposed to look out for us, to keep us safe.

I disagree. I think our government is supposed to empower us to keep ourselves safe.

If a person depends on the government for their safety, then the government should be able to dictate where they live. I suggest Kansas, where they're giving away land.

I think society, through government, has an obligation to help those in times of need. I don't think it has an obligation to subsidize unsustainable activity, including rebuilding in hurricane prone floodplains.

[bettyellen]

6. FEMA begs to differ... except when they forgot that they said that.

so what is the govt doing to keep us safe from becoming the working poor? from being poisoned by the by-products dumped by the captains of industry? god save us from this "free market" - we'll all need a safety net someday.

[BeFree]

7. Following that reasoning

We should be rid of fire departments, eh?

People should build their houses absolutely fire proof, and if they don't, too bad.
:sarcasm:

[BeFree]

8. Away from the coast, indeed

What we are taliking about is rethinking the whole community idea. It is not sustainable to build scattered housing with an expanded transportation system reliant on automobiles in flood plains or coastal areas.

In fact, a new cities should be built well back from the more dangerous areas and linked to business districts and tourist destinations by high speed rail.

The federal government cannot continue to subsidize communities that are prone to environmental disasters. Yet, that is what it is about to do if they rebuild the gulf coast.